Reply With Quote
[QUOTE=Shastafarian;2779400]Did you just call me a monkey?
[B]
I did, but it wans't to be taken literally...
And with a newborn arriving within my extended family (possibly any minute now),I must pass on further discussion for a day or two.
Did you just call me a monkey?
Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.
Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. (score one for you dip ....though it's still not a "fact")
Embryological View:
In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.
Neurological view:
Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
Ecological / Technological view:
Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates the point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb)
[QUOTE=Shastafarian;2779400]Did you just call me a monkey?
[B]
I did, but it wans't to be taken literally...
And with a newborn arriving within my extended family (possibly any minute now),I must pass on further discussion for a day or two.
Only Republicans would consider either of those a bad thing, and we all know they would NEVER abort a fetus, would they?
Thanks for reinforcing what was already stated, that life begins at conception, and it’s “not a fact” because you say it isn’t? That is a thorough and compelling argument against the genetic view shasta. You have truly mastered the art of polemics.
And, as if the act of abortion isn’t reprehensible enough, you have to further debase the act by recklessly labeling an argument that you don’t agree with as having “scored a point”. What is it, first one to 5 wins a prize?
There are no "points" scored in an abortion, every sixteen seconds another baby is aborted...there are no winners.
In summary;
1, Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion, by definition, ends that life.
3. Abortion activists and their many supporters don’t give a dam about that life.
Man up and admit that the carnage that is abortion doesn’t bother you.
Do you actually have a brain or what? You only quoted ONE of the theories on when life begins. Then you use it to say it's a fact that life begins at conception. Do you think people can't read or something?
Are you pro-death penalty?
well, the cerebral hemispheres form during the seventh week of development. thats when consciousness, environmental awareness, and human thought patterns begin to take shape (according to science, which is just starting to scratch the surface on how the brain works)
From a biological standpoint you really can't make any valid argument against life beginning at conception.
However, you could make reasonable arguments against human life beginning at conception from a theological standpoint. Even within the christian faith there are differing views about when one recieves a soul or even if the soul is a seperate en y from the body or not. Add all the other faiths into the mix and it is too complex of an argument for a sports/political forum.
I am pro choice, anti roe v. wade. I wouldn't say roe will never be overturned (I hope it is someday). It is not accurate for the pro abortionist's to argue that if roe is overturned that abortion will be illegal. It will NEVER be completely illegal in this country. All that will happen is control of the issue will return to the states where abortion laws will more accurately reflect the views/morals of the majority of people in those states. As it stands right now, the issue at the federal level is driven by minority group of radical pro-abortionists (not pro choice). These are people who make no distinction between an abortion at 8 weeks or 8 months. A view that is reprehensible, immoral by any standard, and does not reflect the view of most women in this country. The majority view from all unbiased polling that I have ever seen would be best described as "pro choice with limits".
Who is this God fella you guys speak of?
I would also like to see a copy of the 'Scientific Law of Human Life' that factually and scientifically proves that life is created at conception. I'm curious to see what tests were performed and what were the results obtained.
A copy in PDF format would be fine.
It's a fact.
For the comprehension challenged, resident tinfoil hats that are unable to differentiate between theory, view and fact, STOP READING HERE! (Shasta, you may now commence with another of your infantile rants)
Here's the scientific basis supporting the fact that life begins at conception
THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE
There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible
The question as to when human life and personhood begins has been made a controversial issue because the proponents of abortion do not want it to begin at least before the first 24 weeks of gestation. There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible. These facts have been obscured on both sides by individuals who do not possess the necessary education, training and experience in science to evaluate and interpret the materials and render valid conclusions or who, influenced by their religious or chauvinistic fervor have reached erroneous or untenable suppositions and conclusions, argumentum ad hominem. Justice Blackmun opined in Roe P. Wade that the determination as to when life and personhood begins is a difficult decision that the court is not in a position to speculate on and there in does not have the resolve since those trained in medicine are unable to arrive at any consensus. The U. S. Supreme Court Justices then carried their defective reasoning even further in Roe v. Wade when in contrast with all other civilized societies, ruled that the unborn is a non-person regardless as to whether it is a human being or not. This decision then made the unborn ineligible for the protection that is guaranteed to all human persons under the U. S. Cons ution. What Blackmun and the other U. S. Justices were really saying was that maybe human life and personhood begins at conception but since we do not know for sure, we will allow abortion until someone proves differently. This is the mentality of most of the ardent supporters of abortion which is in sharp contrast to logical reasoning when applied to possible life or death situations. In the field of medicine, the proper medical diagnostic approach must proceed in a rational manner with the safety of the patient always foremost, primum non nocere, first do no harm. An example of this is the patient with chest pain. Here, it behooves the physician to consider chest pain as heart related until proven otherwise even though chest pain is only heart related in less than 20 % of the cases since an error in diagnosis may cause the patient his life. I have personally investigated many unfortunate cases in my role as medical examiner, where this approach was neglected by physicians and the patients subsequently died. In Roe vs. Wade, millions of human beings were legally murdered by the stroke of a pen. Ergo, the Roe versus Wade Decision should have utilized the premise, ...a human person until proven otherwise...thereby preventing. the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings. In the words of Louis Brandeis, "if we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable"
In recent years there has been a revolution in genetics that confirmed what geneticists and embryologists have been saying for years, that human life with all of its characteristics for a particular human being must be coded in the fertilized egg. In 1948, Dr. Bradley Patten, one of the most distinguished embryologists in the world definitively related in his textbook ( I ). "It Is the penetration of the ovum by the spermatzoon and the resulting mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that cons utes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. In the midst of the current Genetic Revolution, one of the foremost, highly honored geneticist in the world, Jerome Lejeune, M. D., Ph.D., Professor of Genetics at the University of Paris and Sorbonne, related, "...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...when the information carried by the sperm and by the ovum have encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and human cons ution is entirely spelled out. The information which is inside the first cell obviously tells this cell all the tricks of the trade to build himself as the individual this cell is already....to build that particular individual which we will call later Margaret or Paul or Peter, it's already there, but it's so small we cannot see it ...It’s what life is, the formula is there; ....if you allow the formula to be expanded by itself, just giving shelter and nurture, then you have the development of the full person "
In order to understand why we now know and not just infer that human life begins at the time of conception, it is important that we understand some of the fundamental concepts in genetics. Both the human spermatozoa and the human egg each contain 23 chromosomes. When the spermatozoa penetrates the ovum, the 23 chromosomes from each, arrange themselves in 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes
One chromosome from each pair is from each parent. It is at this moment that both fertilization and human life begins and the cell divides into 2 cells, then 4 cells, 8 cells, 16 cells and so forth until the complete human body is formed.
The fertilized egg is called the zygote. Each chromosome is packed with a long string of deoxyribosenucleic acid commonly known as DNA. Each of these strings of DNA is composed of two tightly, intertwined, strands which comprise the spiral staircase structure discovered by Nobelists, Crick and Watson in 1953.
For the sake of bandwidth I won't post the entire article. For the open-minded, it's a quick and quite remarkable read.
http://e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm
Man you are one mindless drone. That article is so biased I think it's easy to see where that person stands on abortion (NOT WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS!). I also like how none of his sources are post-1994. I'll ask you this. Would you have a funeral for a fetus that died let's say 3 weeks into their gestation? It's a person right so you should have a funeral every time there is a miscarriage.
It is estimated that about 15 to 20% of known pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
So are you in favor of capital punishment? I'm curious to know considering you're so adamant about saving the "lives" of innocent unborn people.
Last edited by Shastafarian; 09-21-2008 at 06:23 AM.
I don't remember any of my life before the age of 2. I can't even honestly say I existed during that time period.
Since the mind isn't even developed enough to store these memories or really anything of significance, then why is infanticide illegal? There is clearly something "more" than consciousness or pain tolerance or whatever that defines life.
A 7 year old dog is more sentient than a 1 month year old child, yet people would not care if you killed the animal but would be horrified at killing the human. What gives the infant the right to life over the fetus? The sole fact that it is no longer parasitic to the mother? Then is it wrong to kill a fetus in a test tube? Why can a city euthanize a thousand unwanted pets a day, but can't do the same to a newborn baby when they have the same intellect? Why can we euthanize our pets and mercy kill them but not people? Is it murder if I kill someone in an persistent coma?
Clearly we have a long way to go in answering these questions.
We have no idea what life is.
Haven't you heard? "It's a fact".
Go kill a pregnant woman and see how many murders you get charged with. We know.
Again that has to do with the possibility of life. It is up to the mother to have an abortion. If someone takes that right away and kills her and the baby, then it was the termination of a wanted pregnancy. That pregnancy would have come to term and it would've become a human life.
It clearly shows where life begins, and respecting life (what you ignorantly refer to as bias) is your basis for his research being skewed? I fail to follow the logic of that argument (don’t bother trying to explain, it’s flat out ridiculous).
If scientific research is skewed because of the researchers personal opinion (it's not), then throw away all conclusions about when life begins that are written by pro-abortion researchers. Using your “logic” scientific research, unless performed by someone indifferent to its outcome, is to be taken with a grain of salt.
I’ll throw you a sop shasta; you have a penchant for stupefying an issue. (enjoy the compliment, based on your posts here, I don’t foresee another coming anytime soon).
Because the era of true knowledge began in 1995. Got it...I also like how none of his sources are post-1994.
You are a putz.I'll ask you this. Would you have a funeral for a fetus that died let's say 3 weeks into their gestation? It's a person right so you should have a funeral every time there is a miscarriage.
In what respect shasta? (Yeah, I know, that didn't make sense, just thought I'd descend to a level that you're comfortable with)So are you in favor of capital punishment?
Hope you're not losing sleep over it.I'm curious to know
And BTW, straight from the article you referenced:
Facts indeed...
Um...YES
Thanks for agreeing with me! Aw man are you being sarcastic? That's funny. Wait no it's not. Are you seriously saying that there couldn't possibly be anything since 1995 that would refute scientific findings of a guy who is pro-life?Because the era of true knowledge began in 1995. Got it...
Coming from a guy like you I wear this as a badge of honor.You are a putz.
....leave the comedy to people who can actually pull it off. I'm asking because you're obviously so pro-life that you wouldn't be caught dead (PUN INTENDED!) supporting something that has killed, in a rather horrible manner, innocent people. But I doubt you'll tell me whether or not you support killing innocent people. You only care about fetuses because god supposedly told you to care. Wait, that's right. No he/she/it didn't. I can't seem to remember anything in the bible that talks about abortion.In what respect shasta? (Yeah, I know, that didn't make sense, just thought I'd descend to a level that you're comfortable with)
I lose sleep over the fear that ignorant people like you have a say in the direction of the country.Hope you're not losing sleep over it.
And BTW, straight from the article you referenced:
Facts indeed...I didn't even catch that one.
Nice detective work elnono, except that Zugibe and the "creator" aren't one and the same. Find where the "creator" did the scientific research and you have a point.And BTW, straight from the article you referenced:
"it is the opinion of the creator"
Facts indeed...
A copy of that in PDF form will suffice.
In Zubige's words;
RIF"There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible". F. Zugibe
To the surprise of no one.
keep fighting the good fight, JJ...
Then who, may I ask, is the creator?
So...if there is at least a doubt, a current intellectual debate about when life begins, why should we err on the side of ending the life?
We aren't doing anything. It's up to the person in whom the "person" resides. Still waitin on all those pro-"lifers" to come forward and say whether they are for capital punishment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
